A recent study is out
on child abuse in the Catholic church. The figures are staggering --
there is documented sexual abuse (serious abuse, not just pats on the
rump) by four percent of the priests over that time period; and even
that may be an undercount, as it's still based on self-reporting by a
hierarchy which has not, to date, been inclined to come clean.

But how bad is that? The authors of the report aren't sure:

These reports provide the most comprehensive examination
ever of child sexual abusers in any institution, their authors said,
so it is not possible yet to determine whether Catholic priests are
more prone to molest children than any other professionals who work
with youngsters.

Is it fair to hold priests to a higher standard just because
they're supposed to be in the business of moral instruction?

Perhaps not. But consider: One of the things that the report
documents is that the Catholic hierarchy was very protective of
accused priests, and frequently dismissive toward their accusers. The
bishops were loyal to the institution because they sincerely believe
that it is on a mission from God. And that loyalty drove them so much
that it made them forget what that mission is supposed to be.

And if you want some decent writing on Christians
who have lost the plot, here's Jeanne D'arc with a few
notes on the kind of Christian that finds more inspiration in the
death of Jesus than in his message...

Thursday, February 26, 2004

It can be dangerous to read publishers' blurbs while fatigued. A
glance through heavy-lidded eyes at the promos for Wil McCarthy's latest (out in April) in
the window of Pandemonium
yesterday yielded roughly the following:

Lost in Translation, by Wil McCarthy

In a novel that challenges our expectations at every turn,
acclaimed author Wil McCarthy sweeps us into the future as only he can
imagine it. Here is a thrilling odyssey of discovery and adventure
in a city of exiled rebels coming of age...

Brash and idealistic, he was a rebel without a cause in a world
governed by science, reason... and immortality. Banished for his
troubles to Tokyo, he now faces a stark future, condemned to make
commercials for Suntory Whiskey while being battered with stage
directions in incomprehensible Japanese. The ad shoot will last a
century, but with Queendom technology it's no problem to step into a
fax machine and "print" a fresh, youthful version of yourself. But the
outré Japanese nightlife this hard-charging rebel will find is
far from the paradise he would seek. Aided only by the neglected wife
of an American photographer, he must struggle against loneliness, jet
lag, and death itself, which has returned with a vengeance!

A few Republicans (and DINO Zell Miller) in the Senate have recently
floated what you might call the "establishment of religion act of
2004", which, among other things, seeks to place any bill establishing
religious ceremony in government beyond the purview of the courts
themselves. And some radicals, like David Neiwert, think the whole
thing is profoundly
unamerican.

Well, writing from Massachusetts, I think that's nonsense. The
establishment of religion is in fact a strain of wholly American
tradition which was strong here right from our earliest days, where
the intolerant local authorities banned not only pagan rituals
borrowed from African slaves, in the Salem witch trials, but also persecuted
even Christians they viewed as deviant, hanging the occasional
Quaker, and banishing the
Protestant minister Roger Williams, who went on to found the colony of
Rhode Island, because (like the dangerous secularist Neiwert), he had
strange ideas about actually separating church and state.

So, state coercion of religion actually goes a long way back in
American history, and attempts at revival are an interesting
development which has to be seen in that context. We have yet to see
what will come of it, of course, but one way or another we're sure to
get the government we deserve.

A senior scientist at the Department of Agriculture says its scientific experts have been pressured by top officials to approve products for Americans to eat before their safety can be confirmed.

In particular, the scientist said, approval to resume importing Canadian beef was given last August before a study confirming that it was safe. Canadian beef was banned after mad cow disease was found there in May.

The scientist's concerns were echoed by several scientific groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project, which say the Agriculture Department has pressured scientists to protect industries or countries favored by the Bush administration.

And some cynics suggest they're opposed to trade. A topic to which I shall return...

Monday, February 23, 2004

... economists are surely right: the biggest factor
eliminating old jobs and churning new ones is technological change --
the phone mail system that eliminated your secretary. As for the
zippies who soak up certain U.S. or European jobs, they will become
consumers, the global pie will grow, and ultimately we will all be
better off. As long as America maintains its ability to do
cutting-edge innovation, the long run should be fine. Saving money by
outsourcing basic jobs to zippies, so we can invest in more high-end
innovation, makes sense.

How might we interpret this? Perhaps we are supposed to wait for a
few innovators to come up with the basis of new industries, which will
then employ all the workers whose jobs being displaced by cheaper
labor in China and India. Except for one thing -- when those new
businesses are ready to go into production, why would they
put their offices and factories in the States? What we keep on
hearing from everyone, including Friedman himself earlier in this same
column, is that workers in India are just as educated, just as
trainable as workers in the U.S. -- and whole lot cheaper. Which
makes Friedman's later call to ease the transition, echoing Robert
Reich, by providing "job training" seem rather hollow. Like every
other paean that I've seen for "transition assistance" for the
workers, it begs the question, transition to what?

Or are the displaced office and manufacturing workers to be
involved in "innovation" up close and personal? In which case,
Friedman is clearly breaking new intellectual ground. How many people
would have said before him: Let them get Ph.D.s!

And it's not just that he can't see the future;
he's also blowing it on the past -- Kevin Drum points out
that he got the phone mail example exactly backward...